APPENDIX X

SELECTED SECTIONS OF FDEP TMDL CRITERIA

FOR 

MERCURY AND FECAL COLIFORM 
Draft 9/20/2012

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

Bureau of Watershed Restoration

Mercury TMDL for the State of 

Florida

(Revised Draft)

Watershed Evaluation and TMDL Section

September 20, 2012
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

5

1.4 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Florida’s surface waters are protected for five designated use classifications, as follows:

Class I Potable water supplies

Class II Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, wellbalanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV Agricultural water supplies

Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state 

waters currently in this class)

The State of Florida has adopted (in Chapter 62-302 of the Florida Administrative Code, or 

F.A.C.) a series of water quality criteria for its five classes of waters, each designed to protect 

the associated designated use of the classification. These criteria require that the total mercury 

concentration in ambient water should be less than 0.012 μg/L (12 ng/L) for Class I and Class III 

freshwater waterbodies, should be less than 0.025 μg/L (25 ng/L) for Class II and Class III 

marine waterbodies, and should be less or equal to 0.2 μg/L (200 ng/L) for Class IV and Class V 

waters [per 62-302.530(41), F.A.C.]. Chapter 62-302.500, F.A.C., provides direction for the 

Department to ensure Minimum and General Criteria are being met in surface waters of the 

state. Specifically, the Minimum Criteria provide that waters should be “free from” substances 

that are acutely toxic or “5. Are present in concentrations which are carcinogenic, mutagenic, or 

teratogenic to human beings or to significant, locally occurring wildlife or aquatic species, unless 

specific standards are established for such components in Rules 62-302.500(2) or 62-302.530, 

or (6) Pose a serious danger to the public health, safety or welfare.” 

There has been recognition of the potential for elemental mercury to be transformed into other 

forms of mercury (e.g., methylmercury - MeHg) which have been identified as being a human 

health risk. However, so far, no ambient water MeHg criteria have been established. Florida 

has not yet adopted criteria limiting the amounts of mercury in fish tissue. Instead, the 

Department’s rules identify waterbodies impaired for mercury pollution based on fish 

consumption advisories issued by the Florida Department of Health, which are in turn based on 

observations that mercury tissue concentration in fish samples exceeds the 0.3 mg total 

mercury /kg of fish tissue recommended by EPA for human health protection. To provide an 

added level of protection, this TMDL also assesses impact to the more sensitive populations in 

Florida, specifically women of childbearing age and young children, and uses a target of 0.1 mg 

total mercury per kilogram of fish tissue, as identified by the Florida Department of Health in 

their fish consumption advisories. 

1.5 Impaired Waterbodies in Florida Listed for Mercury Impairment

For assessment purposes, the Department has divided the entire State of Florida into 6,638 

water assessment polygons, with each watershed or waterbody reach (including lakes, rivers, 

estuaries, and coastal waters) having been assigned a unique waterbody identification (WBID) 

number. In the mid-1990s, several environmental groups filed “Notices of Intent to Sue” with the 

US EPA for failing to take significant action to address the nation’s polluted surface waters. In 

total, almost 40 actions were filed, many of which resulted in the signing of court ordered 

Consent Decrees between the EPA and petitioning groups. In Florida, a Consent Decree was 

signed in June, 1999, which laid out a 10-year schedule for the examination of almost 2000 

potentially impaired waterbody/pollutant problems identified on Florida’s 1998 303(d) list. The 

EPA’s 1999 Consent Decree listed 102 Florida waterbodies (freshwater and marine) as 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

6

impaired for mercury based on fish consumption advisories issued by Florida’s Department of 

Health and therefore were presumed to need TMDLs (Figure 1.1). Due to the acknowledged 

complexity and many unknowns of the science tied to mercury moving through the environment, 

the mercury listings were identified as a parameter needing considerable added data collection 

and study and, therefore, were to be addressed in the final year of the Consent Decree (2012). 

Table 1.1 summarizes the number of WBIDs listed by the Consent Decree for mercury 

impairment by waterbody types. A complete list of waterbodies identified on this list is provided 

in Appendix A.

Table 1.1 Number of Water Segments Listed on the 1998 Consent Decree List for 

Mercury Impairment Based on Fish Consumption Advisory

Waterbody 

Type

Number of 

WBIDs Listed

Streams 63

Lakes 13

Estuaries 26

The Department assesses mercury impairments based fish consumption advisories issued by 

the Florida Department of Health (DOH). The IWR (62-303.470, F.A.C.) requires that at least 

twelve fish be collected for the assessed waterbody, with an average mercury concentration 

above the DOH fish tissue concentration threshold. If this occurs, based on the most current 

data, those waters are placed on Florida’s Verified List of impaired waters. For the case of 

marine fish advisories, the Department lists all coastal waters in acknowledgement that many 

marine fish are highly mobile (especially pelagic species) and could be caught/consumed in all 

coastal WBIDs, regardless of whether or not fish tissue data are available for each costal WBID. 

This is based on Rule 62-303.470(2), F.A.C., which states “Waters with advisories determined 

to meet the requirements of this section or waters where scientifically credible and compelling 

information meeting the requirements of Chapter 62-160, F.A.C., indicates that applicable 

human health-based water quality criteria are not met shall be listed on the verified list.” 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

7

Figure 1.1 Consent Decree Listed Waterbodies for Mercury Fish Tissue Impairment 

 in Florida
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

8

Currently in Florida, there are a total of 1,132 WBIDs listed for mercury impairment based on 

fish tissue data, which represent 12,994 square miles of lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters,

and 2,903 miles of streams and rivers. Table 1.2 presents a breakdown of the number of 

WBIDs and miles/square miles assessed with mercury fish tissue impairments for different 

waterbody types. Figure 1.2 shows the WBIDs on Department’s Verified List for Mercury Fish 

Tissue Impairment. A complete list of freshwater waterbodies verified for mercury impairment is 

provided in Appendix B. Data presented include WBIDs from the most recently completed 

cycle of the basin rotation (i.e., Cycle 2). Appendix C includes regional maps showing WBIDs 

verified for mercury fish tissue impairment using the IWR listing process.

About two-thirds of all freshwater fish analyzed in Florida exceed the EPA MeHg criterion (0.077 

milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]) for fish-eating wildlife (such as wading birds, osprey, otters, 

and Florida panthers). One-third of the freshwater fish sampled in Florida exceed the EPArecommended Total Hg criterion (0.3 mg/kg) for human health. Currently, over 300 freshwater 

waterbodies in Florida have a consumption limit on recreationally caught fish. Twenty species 

of freshwater fish are under some level of DOH advisory (FDEP, 2012). 

Table 1.2 Number of WBIDs and Miles/Square Miles Impaired for Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) by Waterbody Type 

Waterbody Type Number of WBIDs Impaired Miles Impaired

Streams/Rivers 249 2,903

Waterbody Type Number of WBIDs Impaired Square Miles Impaired

Lakes 127 1,344

Estuaries 504 5,163

Coastal 221 6,487
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

9

Figure 1.2 Waterbodies on Department’s Verified Lists for Mercury Fish Tissue 

Impairment in Florida
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

32

Figure 3.10 Comparison of waste incineration emissions for Broward, Dade, and Palm 

Beach counties (source: Husar and Husar, 2002)

Mercury emissions falling on Florida, do not follow the trends that the sources of mercury from 

within Florida have followed in the last 20+ years. Figure 3.11 illustrates trends in mercury wet 

deposition observed at the Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) site located in Everglades 

National Park. Within each month’s display a trending up of deposition can be observed for 

2002-2007. Figure 3.11, shows the trends for all of the previous MDN sites in Florida, which 

show a flattening of deposition loads. However, the variability and spatial distribution of the 

data, along with the impact of increased global source emissions in the last 5 years, does not 

allow for a trend to be evaluated. 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

33

Figure 3.11 Monthly Volume-Weighted Mean Hg at Florida MDN sites

Mercury emissions from Florida sources have been in decline with the installations of emission 

controls on coal fired EGUs (Table 3.4). In several cases, the controls already implemented on 

coal-fired EGUs are achieving the mercury emission limits required by the pending MATS 

controls for mercury (Table 3.5) at coal-fired EGUs. The table also compares mercury 

emissions from 2009, a time at which only some mercury controls were fully installed and 

operational, with the anticipated limits under MATS being for implementation of all required 

controls. 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

34

Table 3.4 Estimated Mercury Reduction Associated with the Mercury Air Toxic Standards Rule (MATS) (Source DARM, 

2012) [Repeat table header, with Continued at top of next page]

Plant Name Unit 

ID

Capacity 

(MW)

On 

Line 

Year

Wet/Dry 

Scrubber

Scrubber 

Online 

Year

NOx 

Comb 

Control

NOx 

PostComb 

Control

SCR 

Online 

Year

SNCR 

Online 

Year

PM Control

Approx. Hg 

Reduction 

(%)

Seminole 2 658 1984 Wet 

Scrubber 1984 LNBO SCR 2009 ESPC 75

Seminole 1 658 1984 Wet 

Scrubber 1984 LNBO SCR 2009 ESPC 73

St. Johns River 

Power Park 2 626 1988 Wet Scrubber 1988 LNB SCR 2008 ESPC 75

St. Johns River 

Power Park 1 626 1987 Wet Scrubber 1987 LNB SCR 2009 ESPC 75

Stanton Energy 

Center 2 446 1996 Wet Scrubber 1996 LNB SCR 1996 ESPC 86

Stanton Energy 

Center 1 440 1987 Wet Scrubber 1987 LNB ESPC 57

Crystal River 1 379 1966 LNC1 ESPC 0

Crystal River 2 491 1969 LNB ESPC 0

Crystal River 4 722 1982 Wet 

Scrubber 2010 LNB SCR 2008 ESPC 90

Crystal River 5 721 1984 Wet 

Scrubber 2009 LNB SCR 2009 ESPC 90

Crist 7 472 1973 Wet 

Scrubber 2010 LNB SCR 2004 ESPC 76

Crist 4 78.0 1959 2010 LNB SNCR 2006 ESPC+ESPH 76

Crist 5 78.0 1961 2010 LNB SNCR 2006 ESPC+ESPH 76

Crist 6 302 1970 Wet 

Scrubber 2010 LNB+OFA SCR 2012 2006 ESPC 76

Scholz 2 49.0 1953 ESPC 0

Scholz 1 49.0 1953 ESPC 0

Lansing Smith 2 195 1967 LNC3 SNCR 2005 ESPC+ESPH 0

Lansing Smith 1 162 1965 LNB SNCR 2005 ESPC+ESPH 0

Big Bend BB03 364 1976 Wet 

Scrubber 1995 LNB SCR 2009 ESPC 87

Big Bend BB01 391 1970 Wet 

Scrubber 1999 LNB SCR 2009 ESPC 87

Big Bend BB04 447 1985 Wet 

Scrubber 1985 LNB SCR 2007 ESPC 87
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

35

Plant Name Unit 

ID

Capacity 

(MW)

On 

Line 

Year

Wet/Dry 

Scrubber

Scrubber 

Online 

Year

NOx 

Comb 

Control

NOx 

PostComb 

Control

SCR 

Online 

Year

SNCR 

Online 

Year

PM Control

Approx. Hg 

Reduction 

(%)

Big Bend BB02 391 1973 Wet 

Scrubber 1999 LNB SCR 2009 ESPC 87

Deerhaven 

Generating Station B2 228 1981 Wet Scrubber 2009 OFA SCR 2009 ESPC 83

Northside 

Generating Station 2 275 2002 Dry Scrubber 2002 SNCR 2002 B

Northside 

Generating Station 1 275 2002 Dry Scrubber 2002 SNCR 2002 B

C D. Mcintosh Jr 3 342 1982 Wet 

Scrubber 1982 LNB SCR 2011 ESPC 75

Cedar Bay 

Generating LP CBC 83.3 1994 Reagent Injection SNCR 1994 B

Cedar Bay 

Generating LP CBB 83.3 1994 Reagent Injection SNCR 1994 B

Cedar Bay 

Generating LP CBA 83.3 1994 Reagent Injection SNCR 1994 B

Indiantown 

Cogeneration LP

AAB0

1 330 1995 Dry Scrubber 1995 LNB+OFA SCR 1995 B
36

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table 3.5 Estimated Mercury Reduction Associated with the Mercury Air Toxic 

Standards Rule (MATS) (Source DARM, 2012) Repeat header next page

2009 emissions controls reflect EGU operations for the base atmospheric modeling year, and 

the projected CAMD MATS limits are the projected emission loads allowed based upon the 

CAMD heat inputs. Some EGUs had controls come online in 2009, which is not reflected in the 

2009 loads.

Coal-fired Electric 

Generation Unit

Emissions with 

2009 Controls 

(lbs/yr)

CAMD Heat 

Input 

(MMBtu)

CAMD MATSlimited Hg 

(lbs/yr)

TECO Big Bend 106.3

Unit 1 65.5 20,504,228 24.6

Unit 2 18.7 12,866,303 15.4

Unit 3 10.9 31,424,714 37.7

Unit 4 11.2 31,965,301 38.4

LEC C.D.McIntosh 19.6

Unit 3 19.6 19,974,895 24.0

Cedar Bay Cogen 29.0

Unit A 7,058,495 8.5

Unit B 7,471,021 9.0

Unit C 6,849,345 8.2

GP Crist 327.2

Unit 4 29.0 2,448,587 2.9

Unit 5 28.5 4,135,866 5.0

Unit 6 96.4 10,635,530 12.8

Unit 7 173.3 22,037,348 26.4

PE Crystal River 528.0

Unit 1 83.0 20,859,374 25.0

Unit 2 110.0 23,734,375 28.5

Unit 4 158.0 42,114,153 50.5

Unit 5 177.0 30,288,500 36.3

GRU Deerhaven 5.3

Unit 2 5.3 14,576,952 17.5

Indiantown Cogen 19.6

Unit 1 15,651,993 18.8

GP Lansing Smith 150.1

Unit 1 70.7 5,486,938 6.6

Unit 2 79.4 9,602,261 11.5

TECO Polk Power 9.0

Unit 1 9.0 10,690,718 26.7

GP Scholz 13.6
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

37

Coal-fired Electric 

Generation Unit

Emissions with 

2009 Controls 

(lbs/yr)

CAMD Heat 

Input 

(MMBtu)

CAMD MATSlimited Hg 

(lbs/yr)

Unit 1 7.3 278 0.0

Unit 2 6.3 125,240 0.2

Seminole Gen. Station 54.3

Unit 1 26.3 29,206,824 35.0

Unit 2 28.0 45,703,994 54.8

JEA SJRPP/NGS 72.0

SJRPP Unit 1 29.7 39,932,826 47.9

SJRPP Unit 2 28.6 49,271,796 59.1

NGS Unit 1 8.6 18,222,684 5.5

NGS Unit 2 5.2 18,438,274 5.5

OUC Stanton 135.0

Unit 1 106.5 33,123,155 39.7

Unit 2 28.4 29,156,501 35.0

TOTALS 1469.0 717.2

Many of the above referenced units installed air pollution controls in the 2009 timeframe. 2009 emissions do not 

necessarily represent the full operating capacity of these units. The CAMD information is based on information 

submitted by the utilities to the EPA Clean Air Markets Division.

Cement production is another relatively significant source of mercury emissions (Table 3.6). 

This is from the combined issues of coal being used as a fuel source in the cooking of the 

klinker, the mercury in the limestone which is a major raw ingredient for clinker production and

also that coal ash from power utilities being a common ingredient used in cement production. 

Table 3.6 2009 Florida Portland Cement Production and Estimated Mercury 

Emissions (source DARM, 2012)

Facility

Mercury 

(lb/MM ton 

clinker)

Mercury 

(Act. 

lb/yr) 

Mercury 

Permitted 

(lb/yr)

MACT Limit 

(lb/MM ton 

clinker)

Mercury @ MACT 

(lb/yr)

American Cement

 Kiln No. 1(New) 111 43 122/12-

month 55 21.08

CEMEX North

 Kiln No.1 No limit 

(~120) 55

 Kiln No.2 No limit 

(~120) 55

TOTAL 0 0 ~240

CEMEX South

 Kiln No.1 154 40 262.8 55 14.32

 Kiln No.2 (New) 119 73 122 55 33.73

TOTAL 113 48.05

CEMEX Miami

 Kiln No. 1 83 62 182 55 40.68

FRI

 Kiln No. 1 50 23 200 55 25.31
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

38

Facility

Mercury 

(lb/MM ton 

clinker)

Mercury 

(Act. 

lb/yr) 

Mercury 

Permitted 

(lb/yr)

MACT Limit 

(lb/MM ton 

clinker)

Mercury @ MACT 

(lb/yr)

 Kiln No.2 (New) 111 24 122 55 12.05

TOTAL 48 37.36

Sumter Cement

 Kiln No.1 

 (delayed) 184/12-month

Suwannee 

American

 Kiln No. 1 89 53 97 55 32.55

Titan

 Kiln No.1 80 78 229/12-month 55 53.52 

Totals: Actual Hg: 395 MACT Limit Hg: 233.23

These source categories, and the emissions inventory, were updated as part of the Florida 

Mercury TMDL project for the base case atmospheric modeling year of 2009. Florida 

emissions, by category, were derived and updated from the US EPA’s National Emissions 

Inventory 2005 (US EPA NEI, 2005), as presented in Table 3.7. The table shows an estimated 

30% and 50% reduction in coal-fired EGU and waste-to-energy plant emissions, respectively. 

These reductions can be attributed to new controls and adjustments to the waste stream. The 

table shows a reduction of ~50% by the cement industry; however, this cannot be attributed to 

controls and is a result of having identified a dramatically reduced level of production in 

response economic conditions and the slowing of the housing market. The dramatic increase 

shown for Gerdau-Ameristeel is a consequence of correcting errors in the NEI 2005 for accurate 

information on levels of production and production methodologies at this facility.

Table 3.7 2009 Mercury Emissions Inventory in Florida (DARM & UMAQL, 2011)

Source Category 2005 NEI 

(lbs/year)

Nominal 2009 

DARM Update 

(lbs/year)

Relative 

Percentage of 

Annual Mercury 

Emissions 2009

Coal-fired electric generation 2,094 1,469 37.0%

Cement Industry 710 326 8.2%

Waste to energy plants 692 663 16.7%

Oil-fired electric generation 314 314 7.9%

Waste water treatment plants 102 102 2.6%

Medical waste incineration 4 2 0.1%

Gerdau-Ameristeel 13 250 6.3%

All others 43 43 1.1%

Total: 3,972 3,169

3.4 Mercury Deposition and Re-Emission

Mercury deposition can be thought of broadly as occurring under two circumstances: wet and 

dry deposition. As the names imply wet deposition is that which occurs in precipitation events: 

rain, sleet, snow, and dew. Wet deposition is measured by capturing the precipitation and 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

39

securing it so that the mercury cannot evaporate or sublimate from the collection. Wet 

deposition is especially important in Florida because of the high frequency of convection storms 

(thunder storms), and the large size of these weather systems in Florida. Convection storms 

can climb in excess of 10 miles which allows a stripping of atmospheric constituents, including 

mercury, from these great vertical columns, thus the wet deposition often represents the 

mercury in a very large volume of the atmosphere. Additionally, thunderstorms can produce 

winds in excess of 55 mph pulling in still more volumes of air from which the rain, or hail, strips 

atmospheric pollutants. Across Florida, thunderstorms are more common in inland areas by

~20%; and, across coasts to inland areas thunderstorms occur on average of 80 to 100 days 

per year. The scale of rain from thunderstorms often in excess of 3 inches in an hour also 

means that pollutants stripped from the air, and those already deposited on ground surfaces, 

are washed into mesic, wetland, and aquatic systems.

 

Dry deposition as the name implies is that which occurs external to precipitation events. Dry 

deposition characteristics and rates are far less studied than wet deposition. This is due to the 

increase in complexity of capturing and measuring this form of deposition. Prior to the 

Department’s recent applied science to document levels attributable to dry deposition, estimates 

of the relative contribution from dry deposition ranged as being 20% to being equal to wet 

deposition. The clear need to have accurate empirical measures for dry deposition to quantify 

loading of mercury deposition required state of the art science to be put in place across Florida 

to make dry deposition measures. Knowing only the net amount of dry deposition while being 

an important measure would leave so many more questions as to the nature and composition of 

dry deposition. The Mercury TMDL Project applied measuring methodologies that provided fine 

time resolution, as well as speciation of dry deposition. These provide critical data to be used 

toward a better understanding atmospheric chemistries and which aid in understanding mercury 

movement through the environment. The Department chose to measure primary atmospheric 

pollutants continuously such as NOx, SO2, O3, CO, as well as total mercury (THg). Mercury 

speciation was measured at two-hour intervals continuously. These dry deposition measures 

were collected at the four supersites (Pensacola, Jacksonville, Tampa, and Davie) for 14-18 

months from 2009 to 2010. While rates of dry deposition varied spatially and temporally across 

the state, it was always close to being equal to the event driven wet deposition in terms of total 

mercury. The dry deposition mercury speciation and continuous measures are important in 

understanding the specifics and dynamics of mercury cycling within Florida. Atmospheric dry 

mercury is stripped by forests in leaf and needle uptake as well as in resistance knocking 

mercury from the air to the forest floor. Atmospheric dry mercury is taken up by prairie, shrub, 

and wetland plants, where this may be a critical avenue of entry into food webs, and a means of 

having mercury bound to organic matter enter aquatic systems. 

Based upon the literature, estimates of a mean volatilization rate of Hg0 from soil is roughly 11 

pg per square-meter per hour. This rate would reemit most of the atmospheric Hg0 deposition 

onto bare soils or hard surfaces. However, the uncertainty of this process identifies an area for 

additional research on Hg re-emissions. This re-emission cycle would be especially important in 

areas which can subsequently have deposition enter ecological systems, such as areas with 

significant cover of wetlands or forests, and with high levels of rainfall and daily dew deposition. 

 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

40

3.5 Mercury Movement in the Environment

Before we get into the detailed discussion of mercury transport in different ecosystems, we can 

use a general summary here to describe the major pools of mercury in natural systems and the 

dynamics of mercury among these pools (see Figure 2.1). 

Some studies looking at the environmental fate of mercury showed high THg and MeHg 

concentrations locations far from identified point source emissions. What has uniformly 

identified locations where mercury is accumulating in the environment is low lying, flat areas 

(wetter systems, e.g., mesic and wetland systems) (Dennis et al., 2005); those areas where 

precipitation accumulates in landscapes. Also Total Organic Carbon (TOC) correlated well with 

THg and MeHg; and. For Florida this indicates that environment – flat, wet, high in mesic forest 

and wetland cover – is very suitable in almost all areas of the state and such cover is close to all 

emission sources. In Washington State, a study looked at sediment profiles in three lakes of 

varying distance from the emission source a coal fired power plant, and found mercury profiles 

in sediments reflecting the emissions history of the regional source, by load and distance.

Mercury risks to human health, or wildlife, require exposure that occurs primarily, though not 

exclusively, through fish consumption. The amount of mercury that is methylated in ecosystems 

is only a very small fraction of the mercury that is deposited in ecosystems. Sources that 

deposit mercury into ecosystems, whether from emissions or direct discharge, natural or 

anthropogenic, are the means by which mercury becomes available to be transformed into toxic 

methylmercury within the ecosystems and then bioaccumulated up food chains into fish.

3.5.1 Mercury transport and fate in forest ecosystems 

Studies of direct soil sequestration of Hg, immobilization of Hg in forest soil, show a correlation 

with the retention of organic carbon (Schwiseg, 1999). Pools of Hg in upland soils in northern 

temperate regions are about 7 mg per m2, with higher levels reported around the globe, so this 

is only a reference number. The export of Hg by waters draining upland soils to surface waters

is generally low. Concentrations and fluxes of Hg in soil waters, analogously to the pattern in 

soil, are closely related to dissolved organic carbon content. Concentrations of total Hg are 

highest in waters draining the upper soil, coinciding with high concentrations of DOC. The 

conditions optimal for this occurrence are shallow, flat systems with wet high organic soils as is 

predominant in Florida. Concentrations and fluxes of total Hg decrease as DOC is immobilized 

with depth in mineral soil (Grigal, 2002). Limited studies suggest that MeHg concentrations in 

upland soils and ground waters are generally low, although higher concentrations occur in upper 

soil waters and decrease with soil depth. Low concentrations and fluxes of MeHg in drainage 

waters suggest that rates of methylation are low, and freely draining upland soils are generally 

not important in the supply of MeHg to downstream surface waters, with the possible exception 

of recently harvested forests (Porvari et al., 2003).

3.5.2 Mercury in Wetlands: transport and transformation

Wetlands influence the composition and supply of different Hg species to adjacent surface 

waters. Wetlands are typically net sinks of total Hg and sources of MeHg (Grigal 2002). Rates of 

total Hg accumulation are greater in wetlands than in upland soils because of the strong 

association of Hg with organic matter (Grigal, 2003). Annual rates of MeHg production in 

wetlands are approximately 0.1 to 1 μg per m2 per year (Galloway and Branfiruen, 2004). The 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

41

factors controlling methylation of Hg in wetlands are not completely understood, but they most 

likely involve the amounts and types of organic matter, water and soils chemistries, hydrologic 

flow paths, microbial composition, microbial locations relative to flow paths, and rates of 

microbial activity, as well as any limiting resource for microbial activity. Organic matter 

produced in wetlands forms complexes with both ionic Hg and MeHg, enhancing the transport of 

these Hg species to surface waters. There is debate on how these complexes in some cases 

enhance later consumption by single celled organisms or are perhaps incidental in consumption 

by first level secondary consumers. An elevated supply of DOC to downstream surface waters 

may stimulate conditions for mercury methylation, and limit mercury available for 

photodegradation and photoreduction of HgII. Concentrations of MeHg in wetland pore waters 

and surface waters vary seasonally, with the highest concentrations evident during the late 

summer, as a result of warmer temperatures, higher rates of microbial activity, and longer 

hydraulic residence times (Galloway and Branfireun 2004).

3.5.3 Mercury in surface waters

Freshwater ecosystems vary in how they response to Hg pollution. Total Hg concentrations in 

surface waters in the Northeast vary by more than an order of magnitude across systems, from 

less than 0.5 to 12.7 nanograms per liter, the 5th to 95th percentile respectively (Dennis et al., 

2005). Most of the Hg in surface water occurs as HgII, with MeHg ranging from 1% to 35% of 

total Hg. Under conditions of high total Hg loading, MeHg production can vary widely, 

depending on the methylation efficiency of a particular ecosystem.

Other factors controlling mercury in surface waters

Other factors, such as water chemistry, land cover and land use, and watershed disturbances, 

alter the transport, transformation, and bioavailability of Hg in surface waters. Acidic deposition 

and the associated sulfur alter the acid-base status of surface waters, thus influencing Hg 

transformation potentials, may influence Hg uptake by sulfur reducing bacteria (SRB), and 

associated bioaccumulation in fish. Sulfur chemicals are closely coupled with Hg dynamics. 

The solubility of Hg increases with sulfide concentrations in anoxic waters through complexation 

reactions, potentially increasing the pool of Hg available for methylation (Benoit et al., 2005). 

The relationship of mercury to acidification is also related as the required controls under Acid 

Rain Rules promulgated under the Clean Air Act serve to control SO2 and NOx emissions which 

directly cause acid rain which brings about surface water and soil acidification. 

Watersheds with mixed agriculture and forest land cover had the highest methylation efficiency, 

even where these watersheds had low total Hg in sediments. Waters draining agricultural 

landscapes have relatively high concentrations of total Hg and MeHg due to mercury binding to 

organic particulates and higher methylation rates. These can also have lower concentrations in 

fish, due to algal "bloom dilution" associated with high phosphorus loading or elevated DOC 

concentrations (which stimulate methylation but limit bioaccumulation), or both (Kamann et al., 

2004). Forest harvesting has been shown to increase export of total Hg and MeHg (Porvari et 

al., 2003). Fire results in a complex pattern of Hg loss from watersheds. During and shortly 

after fire, elevated Hg losses are associated with volatilization from soils and losses from 

erosion, as well as increased pore water flushing (Grigal 2002). It is important to remember that 

while forest harvesting increases turnovers and scales by anthropogenic actions, that human 

initiated forest fires are reflecting natural fire ecology. Thus, forest harvesting can expose soils 

increasing aspects of the mercury cycle, managed fires are merely mimicking natural fire 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

42

ecology and not increasing mercury loads. Deforestation efforts, especially areas without a 

natural fire ecology, as seen in the developing world, are a source of mercury through both the 

burning of above ground biomass and through the exposure, including associated tilling, of soils 

which readily volatilize any associated mercury. Activities that manage water levels create

significant exposure-saturation patterns, especially systems such as reservoirs or soil 

management programs as with rice, soybeans, or sugar cane, can be sources of increased 

mercury emissions and increased pulses of MeHg formation. These often located in floodplains 

and converted wetland systems, provide areas of mercury binding to organic matter enhanced 

by soil management associated with planting and prime environments for methylation. In 

reservoir systems the littoral zone can fluctuate wetting and drying, thereby varying natural 

cycles of reduction and oxidation both by location and extent, enhancing the production of 

MeHg (Evers et al., 2007; Sorensen et al., 2005).

Habitat type also has an important influence on MeHg concentrations. Data for two-lined 

salamanders (Eurycea bislineata) identified in headwater streams have significantly higher 

MeHg concentrations than those in lakes (Bank et al., 2005). Larval insects in reservoirs have 

been shown to have THg concentrations that are 3 to 10 times higher than those in natural 

lakes (Tremblay et al. 1996). Crayfish (Orconectes virilis) in headwater streams have THg 

concentrations up to five times greater than those in lakes (Pennuto et al., 2005). The 

landscape position of each of these may explain the differences observed.

Forested regions, where wetlands are prevalent, and with low productivity surface waters,

promote high concentrations of mercury in freshwater biota and thus are particularly sensitive to 

mercury deposition.

3.5.4 Mercury moving through organisms

Biota are exposed to MeHg primarily through the roles played by bacteria, and fish and insect 

consumption. The Northeastern Ecosystem Research Cooperative (NERC) data establish 

robust Hg exposure profiles for fish, birds, and mammals and highlight the importance of habitat 

type, foraging guild, trophic structure, and demographics on MeHg exposure (Evers et al., 

2005). In general, THg concentrations vary by species taxonomy. As a general rule, MeHg 

increases with increasing trophic position. Mercury in benthic invertebrates and larval insects 

has been studied in northeastern lakes and reservoirs, where it was observed that even in 

invertebrates, increased mercury per biomass is associated with an increase in trophic level 

(odonates > hemipterans / coleopterans > trichopterans > dipterans / ephemeropterans)

(Tremblay et al., 1996). The NERC data on Hg in over 15,000 fish show that the mean fillet 

THg levels in 10 of the 13 species are above EPA guideline of 0.3 μg/g and highest in top level 

predators such as walleye (Sander vitreus) and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush).
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

43
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

44

Chapter 4: TMDL Approach

4.1 General Approach

To address the mercury impairment in Florida waters, the Department selected a statewide 

approach for mercury TMDL development, rather than a waterbody-specific TMDL approach for 

the following reasons. First, the predominant source of mercury leading to impaired waters in 

Florida is from atmospheric deposition. The majority of atmospheric mercury deposited on 

Florida, as well as the emission sources, comes from outside of Florida. Mercury in the 

atmosphere is transported across multiple watershed boundaries, where it is deposited and 

biologically magnified through the food web, resulting in high fish tissue concentrations. While a 

watershed-based TMDL approach is typical for most pollutants, the phenomenon of 

atmospheric transport of mercury makes a regional or statewide approach the only practical 

method for TMDL development. This approach is consistent with other mercury TMDL efforts 

supported by US EPA, including multi-state efforts. EPA recognized the sources of the mercury 

impairments were largely from outside the borders of individual states and issued a guidance 

document (USEPA, 2008), which supported the concept of addressing the problem at scales 

ranging from waterbody-specific, regional, statewide, or multi-state. 

Second, the statewide approach will be far more cost-effective than the waterbody oriented 

approach. Using the IWR listing process, the Department has verified the mercury fish tissue 

impairment in more than 1100 water segments, as shown in Table 1.2. Rather than attempting 

to develop a mercury TMDL for each of these waterbodies, the proposed approach will focus on 

reducing mercury emissions statewide to benefit all Florida waterbodies, especially those 

susceptible to mercury bio-magnification (e.g., oligotrophic, low alkalinity systems). Although 

the concept of conducting this type of regional TMDL analysis is relatively novel, a similar 

predicate was established as part of the 1990 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program 

Integrated Assessment. For that program, EPA conducted regional simulations for thousands of 

lakes in the Upper Midwest, the Adirondacks, and Florida to evaluate how lakes would behave 

in response to Clean Air Act mandated changes in sulfate emissions, which in turn were 

predicted to reduce acidic deposition.

Key elements that a mercury TMDL should consider were recommended by EPA (USEPA, 

2008). These elements include:

(1) Identification of waterbodies, pollutant sources

(2) Water quality standards and TMDL target

(3) Loading capacity – Linking water quality and pollutant sources (including point and 

nonpoint sources)

(4) Conducting load and wasteload allocations to nonpoint and point sources

(5) Establishing a margin of safety of the TMDL to address the uncertainties associated with 

the target development.

A technical framework was established by the Department to address the TMDL needs listed 

above (Figure 4.1). A sampling protocol was designed to measure fish tissue mercury 

concentrations, concentrations of total mercury, MeHg, and other biogeochemical parameters 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

45

(for both water column and sediment from lakes) that may influence the mercury dynamics in 

Florida waters were collected in numerous Florida streams and lakes that were chosen based 

on a statistical sampling design. Historic data, including fish tissue mercury concentration data 

collected through the fish consumption advisory program jointly carried out by the Department of 

Health (DOH), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), and the 

Department, water chemistry data collected through Department’s Integrated Water Resource 

Monitoring Network (IWRM) were also examined to identify the historic trend of mercury 

impairment in the State of Florida. These data were used to establish the statewide TMDL for 

mercury.

In addition, to aid with subsequent evaluations of the impacts to Florida’s waters, from sources 

both within and outside Florida, the Department developed a technical framework designed to 

quantify and assess the sources and impacts of mercury from atmospheric deposition. 

Technical components included quantifying mercury loadings into Florida and identifying the 

contribution from local sources, regional sources, United States sources, and sources in other 

countries. In order to quantify the mercury loading into the state, predictive atmospheric models 

were used to simulate mercury loadings from different sources and quantify the atmospheric 

deposition flux. Air monitoring networks were also established to measure wet and dry 

depositions at several strategic locations across the State to provide measurements for model 

evaluation, to characterize seasonal dynamics of the air deposition, and to examine the spatial 

effects of major emission centers in the states. Site monitoring locations were specifically 

established within regions of known point source emissions, which differs from MDN locations 

which are deliberately located away from known emission sources. The TMDL approach of 

assigning percent reduction to sources, has each respective mercury source be responsible 

only to their loading, i.e., no source is more weighted for reductions than another.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

46

Figure 4.1 Overview of Technical Components of a Statewide Mercury TMDL Project
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

47

4.2 Mercury Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring

The Department contracted with the University of Michigan to conduct extensive field sampling 

activities at four site in Florida (Pensacola, Jacksonville, Tampa, and Davie) in the period 2008-

2010. The atmospheric sampling sites were established to be able to collect wet and dry 

deposition data. Details of these efforts are contained in Appendix F. 

Table 4.1 Initiation & End Dates of Supersite and Wet Only Site Data Collections

Air & Dry Deposition Wet Deposition

Site Start End Start End

Davie 4/3/2009 8/31/2010 2/2/2009 8/29/2010

Tampa 1/12/2009 8/31/2009 1/29/2009 8/24/2010

Jacksonville 3/9/2009 8/30/2010 3/18/2009 8/29/2010

Pensacola 10/1/2008 8/31/2010 10/7/2008 8/29/2010

Orlando 3/21/2009 8/2/2010

ENP 11/30/2008 8/30/2010

4.3 Mercury Atmospheric Modeling

The Department also contracted with the University of Michigan to perform atmospheric 

modeling follows scaled analyses starting at a global scale and concluding at a 4 km grid scale 

for Florida. The details of this effort are described in Appendix F.

4.4 Mercury Aquatic Cycle Modeling 

The Department also contracted with ALL to perform Aquatic Modeling takes the approach of a 

statistical assessment applying partition analyses for the lakes (more than 7,700 lakes greater 

than 4 ha in size) and stream/river reaches (more than 83,400 km of stream and riverine 

reaches) within Florida. 

4.5 Sampling of Fish Tissue and Collection of Chemical and Biochemical Data 

from the Water Column and Sediment

Developing Mercury Aquatic Models is an essential part of the statewide Mercury TMDL 

development for impaired Florida waters. The goal of the modeling is to establish a functional 

relationship between the mercury loading into receiving waters and the fish tissue mercury 

concentration in these waterbodies. Past studies have demonstrated that, while fish tissue 

mercury concentration for each individual receiving waterbody may show a linear response to 

the change of mercury loading into the waterbody, the fish tissue mercury concentrations across 

lakes and streams were dominated by biogeochemical and landscape variables other than 

mercury loadings (Riva-Murray et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2009; Kamman et al., 2005; Selvendiran 

et al., 2008). Therefore, collecting water quality and sediment samples in tandem with the 

collection of fish tissue mercury concentration is required in order to develop aquatic models. 

These needed data were collected and analyzed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

48

Commission (FWCC) and the Department jointly through a monitoring program conducted in a 

period from September of 2008 through October of 2010. 

In order to ensure a sufficiently broad data range and reasonably even distribution of data 

across the gradient of each sampled parameter for statistical analyses, sampling sites for 

needed parameters were chosen using a stratified random sampling design. Basically, the 

concentration ranges of three target variables (pH, color, and chlorophyll a for lakes; pH, color, 

and nitrate for streams) from lakes and streams included in the Department’s Status Monitoring 

Network (SMN) were examined. The identified concentration ranges of these parameters were 

divided into 5 concentration intervals for each parameter, which yielded a possible 125 unique 

variable interval combinations (5x5x5) or sampling bins. The actual numbers of bins that were 

populated by at least one lake or stream reach were 101 and 95, respectively. Additional lakes 

and streams were sampled at random from individual bins to produce a total number of 133

lakes and 131 streams segments for the sampling.

For each selected waterbody, 12 large-mouth bass (LMB) were collected for total mercury 

analyses. LMB were selected as representing a top level predator in systems in which they are 

present, thus having the greatest rates of bioaccumulation. Size of sample fish was determined 

by the current (FY08/09) FFWC’s size regulations for black bass; however, LMB up to 2” less 

than the minimum size regulation up to approximately 20” were collected in order to establish 

robust relationship between fish tissue concentration and fish size. Where it was infeasible to 

collect 12 LMB, spotted sunfish (SPSU) were collected across a range of available sizes. 

Preliminary analyses comparing concurrently collected LMB and SPSU indicated well-correlated 

tissue mercury concentrations between these two fish species. These sample fish were 

collected by FWCC and shipped to Eustis Fisheries Research Laboratory, or other FWCC

facilities for tissue sample preparation. Prepared fish tissues samples were transported to 

Department’s Central Laboratory for total mercury analyses.

Other than fish sample collection, FWCC also collected concurrent water quality samples from 

the same lakes and streams where fish samples were collected. Water quality samples were 

collected for measurement of aqueous mercury species and ancillary water quality parameters 

including major ion, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), color, total suspended solid (TSS), and 

nutrients. Field measurements, including dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and Secchi depth, 

were also collected. Water quality samples collected by the FFWC were shipped via overnight 

courier to Department’s Central Laboratory in Tallahassee for analyses.

In order to provide a complete dataset to describe factors that influence the mercury fish tissue 

concentrations in Florida waters, sediment sample were also collected in lakes where fish and 

water quality samples were collected. Lake sediment sample collections were conducted by the 

Department and were in parallel to the sample fish and water quality sample collection efforts 

made by FWCC. Sediment sample analyses were conducted by Department’s Central 

Laboratory. These analyses focused on mercury and MeHg, metals (aluminum, arsenic, 

cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, nickel, lead, 

antimony, selenium, strontium, titanium, vanadium, and zinc and nutrients.

All sample collections were conducted in the period from September of 2008 through October of 

2010. Sample collections were conducted once for each selected waterbodies. Figure 4.2

shows the location of sampling sites. Results from sample analyses were summarized in 

Chapter 5 of this report. All field and laboratory procedures for collection of fish samples adhere 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

49

to the guidelines established in the Comprehensive Quality Assurance Plans for Collection of 

Fish established for FWCC (FWC Chemistry Laboratory SOP, HGSOP 4/03) and FDEP (DEPSOP-001/01, FS6000 General Biological Tissue Sampling). All field and laboratory procedure 

for collection and analysis of water samples and laboratory analysis of fish tissue samples were 

adhere to the requirements set forth in Department’s Quality Assurance Rule, Chapter 62-160, 

F.A.C), including Department’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOPs) for field activities (DEPSOP-001/01). 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

50

Figure 4.2 Statewide Mercury TMDL Project Sampling Sites
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

51

4.6 Historic Data for Fish Tissue Mercury Concentration and Water Column 

Chemistry

Other than the fish tissue, water column, and sediment data collected during the 2008-2010 

monitoring program, historical data collected through the fish consumption advisory program 

jointly carried out by the Department, FFWC, and DOH, and by the Department’s Integrated 

Water Resource Monitoring Network (IWRMN) were also examined in order to identify the 

temporal trend of mercury fish tissue impairment in Florida.

Since 1983, FWCC, DOH, and the Department have been jointly conducting investigations on 

fish tissue mercury impairment in Florida waters. This effort primarily focuses on waterbodies 

and fish species that are important for fishing activities. Samples of popular fish species, such 

as LMB, bluegill, redear, sunfish, warmouth, spotted sunfish redbreast sunfish, black crappie, 

catfish, some exotics such as Oscars, butterfly peacocks, and Mayan cichlids, and over 100 salt 

water species such as Atlantic croaker, black grouper, dolphin, fantail mullet, gray snapper, gulf 

flounder, king mackerel, spotted seatrout, and yellowfin tuna, have been collected by FWCC 

from freshwater and marine waterbodies identified by FWCC and shipped to the Department for 

tissue mercury analysis. Fish consumption advisories for specific water bodies are issued by 

DOH if the mercury concentration found in fish is at levels that may pose a risk to human 

health. Advisories for mercury in Florida waters have been issued since 1989. The DOH Web 

site (www.doh.state.fl.us/floridafishadvice) offers regularly updated consumption advisories 

containing specific advice about eating fish from Florida's fresh and marine waters. These

advisories are not intended to discourage fish eating but to provide guidance for choosing the 

right fish and also limit eating fish from waterbodies of high concern of mercury pollution. For 

the statewide mercury TMDL, the Department obtained fish tissue results of over 30,000 fish 

samples collected from more than 300 freshwater segments. Result summarizations of these 

data are provided in Chapter 5 of this report.

As mercury fish tissue concentrations can be influenced both by external mercury loadings into 

the aquatic system and biogeochemical characteristics of receiving waters, it is desirable to 

pair the analyses on mercury fish tissue concentration data with the analysis of water quality 

data. The water quality data used in these analyses were primarily retrieved from 

Department’s IWR Database, which included data collected by Florida’s Integrated Water 

Resource Monitoring Network (IWRM, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/index.htm). 

This network was initiated in 1996 by the Department in an effort to refining its water resource 

monitoring and included three tiers of monitoring programs. Tier I monitoring program include 

status monitoring and trend monitoring. These monitoring networks primarily focus on 

providing the spatial and temporal water quality trend in Florida at the state level. Tier II 

monitoring program is watershed and waterbody oriented. It includes not only the monitoring 

efforts of the Department on individual waterbodies, but also collects water quality monitoring 

results from more than 90 other entities including other state agencies, county and local 

governments, universities, and voluntary groups. Water quality results from the Tier II 

monitoring program constitute the vast majority of the water quality data that the Department 

uses to conduct the IWR listing process and develop TMDLs for impaired waters. Tier III 

monitoring are primarily associated with the monitor activities required through the 

Department’s regulatory permits, which is used to evaluate the effectiveness of point source 

discharge reductions and implementation of best management practices required by TMDLs. 
Chapter 8: Determination of the TMDL

8.1 Expression and Allocation of the TMDL 

The objective of a TMDL is to provide a basis for allocating acceptable loads among all of the 

known pollutant sources in a watershed so that appropriate control measures can be 

implemented and water quality standards achieved. A TMDL is expressed as the sum of all 

point source loads (wasteload allocations, or WLAs), nonpoint source loads (load allocations, or 

LAs), and an appropriate margin of safety (MOS), which takes into account any uncertainty 

concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality:

TMDL = ∑ WLAs + ∑ LAs + MOS

As discussed earlier, the WLA is broken out into separate subcategories for wastewater 

discharges and stormwater discharges regulated under the NPDES Program:

TMDL ≅ ∑ WLAswastewater + ∑ WLAsNPDES Stormwater + ∑ LAs + MOS

It should be noted that the various components of the revised TMDL equation may not sum up 

to the value of the TMDL because (a) the WLA for NPDES stormwater is typically based on the 

percent reduction needed for nonpoint sources and is also accounted for within the LA, and (b) 

TMDL components can be expressed in different terms (for example, the WLA for stormwater is 

typically expressed as a percent reduction, and the WLA for wastewater is typically expressed 

as mass per day).

WLAs for stormwater discharges are typically expressed as “percent reduction” because it is 

very difficult to quantify the loads from MS4s (given the numerous discharge points) and to 

distinguish loads from MS4s from other nonpoint sources (given the nature of stormwater 

transport). The sources of mercury in a stormwater collection system are from wet and dry 

deposition, and atmospheric deposition is considered a component of the nonpoint source load 

allocation. 

This approach is consistent with federal regulations (40 CFR § 130.2[I]), which state that TMDLs 

can be expressed in terms of mass per time (e.g., pounds per day), toxicity, or other appropriate 

measure. Florida’s statewide TMDL for mercury is expressed in terms of a percent reduction, 

and represents the maximum daily load Florida’s lakes, streams, estuaries, and coastal waters 

can assimilate without exceeding the water quality criteria for mercury (Table 8.1). 

8.2 Load Allocation

A reduction in mercury of 86 percent is needed from nonpoint sources contributing to all of the 

fresh and marine waters in Florida to address our water quality limited segments and to protect 

public health. As this reduction is expressed as a percent, the value is applicable over any time 

period, and thereby meets EPA’s requirement that TMDLs must be expressed as a “daily” value. 

It should be noted that the LA includes loading from stormwater discharges regulated by the 

Department and the water management districts that are not part of the NPDES Stormwater 

Program (see Appendix K). As the predominant nonpoint source of mercury to Florida’s waters 

arrives via atmospheric deposition, from sources both within and outside of Florida, specific 

allocations cannot be made at this time. This 86 percent reduction is needed both within and 

outside of Florida and does not preclude consideration of reductions already being achieved by 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

83

Florida sources as identified in Chapter 9. Reductions, as deemed necessary and practicable 

(recognizing technological, fiscal, and legal constraints) will be assigned during the subsequent 

TMDL implementation phase, described more completely in Chapter 9.

Table 8.1 TMDL Components for Mercury in Florida’s Fresh Water Lakes, Streams, 

and Estuarine and Coastal Waters 

This is a six-column table. Column 1 lists the parameter, Column 2 lists the TMDL, Column 3 lists the 

WLA for wastewater, Column 4 lists the WLA for NPDES stormwater, Column 5 lists the LA (percent 

reduction), and Column 6 lists the MOS.

 

Parameter TMDL

(% reduction)

WLA for 

Wastewater

(Kg/year)

WLA for NPDES 

Stormwater LA

(% reduction) MOS

Mercury 86 23 kg* ** 86 Implicit

 * Based on all readily available data, the Department estimated the current permitted mercury load being 

discharged to waters of the state. This value represents less than 0.5 % of the total mercury load from point and 

nonpoint sources in Florida. Mercury minimization is expected for major facilities. 

** NPDES MS4 Permits may require reductions to meet the TMDL goal if sources of mercury under the direct 

control of a MS4 permittee or co-permittee are found to exist. 

8.3 Wasteload Allocation

8.3.1 NPDES Wastewater Discharges

The WLA for the statewide mercury TMDL is established as 23 kg/year. This value translates to 

0.063 Kg/day. Consistent with the findings of other approved TMDLs established on a regional, 

statewide, or multi-state basis, Florida has determined that the mercury contribution from NPDESpermitted point source discharges are minor relative to the loads being deposited on Florida’s land 

and waters (fresh and marine) from atmospheric deposition. 

In Florida, the existing point source load for the entire state has been estimated as being 

approximately 0.5 % of the total mercury loading to the land and waters of the state. According 

to EPA’s Guidance for Implementing the January 2001 Methylmercury Water Quality Criterion 

(EPA, 2010), point source discharges are considered a small contribution if the loading or 

cumulative loading of all point sources to the receiving water are expected to account for a small 

or negligible portion of the total mercury loadings. Table 8.2 provides a summary of the fraction 

the proposed Wasteload Allocation for NPDES permitted facilities versus the existing total 

mercury load for Florida and how those values compared to statewide or regional mercury 

TMDLs approved elsewhere in the United States. The Department anticipates that the 

significant decreases in mercury loading to Florida’s waters have been and will continue to be 

associated with reductions in atmospheric emissions from anthropogenic sources within and 

outside of Florida.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

84

Table 8.2 TMDL Comparison of Wasteload Allocations for Mercury as a Percentage 

of Total Mercury Load for Florida and Other State or Regional TMDLs

State or Region Total Mercury Load Wasteload Allocation WLA/Total Load (%)

Minnesota 2781 Kg/yr 11 Kg/yr 0.40

Northeastern States 6,651 Kg/yr 38 Kg/yr 0.57

New Jersey 601 Kg/yr 6.8 Kg/yr 1.13

Florida 4,793 Kg/yr 23 Kg/yr 0.48 

Once this TMDL is in effect, any new requirements will generally be evaluated and addressed in 

the renewal of existing NPDES permits for point sources, if not earlier through a reopener clause.

The need for compliance schedules to meet the TMDL requirements may be established in a 

BMAP and/or in NPDES permits or an associated Administrative Order. In cases where there are 

sufficient data to determine whether the NPDES discharger has quantifiable concentrations of 

mercury, NPDES permits except domestic facilities discharging less than 1 MGD will include a set 

of additional conditions for implementation of a mercury minimization program to ensure that point

sources are discharging the minimum amount of mercury practicable. For domestic facilities with 

quantifiable concentrations of mercury and discharging greater than 1 MGD, a mercury 

minimization plan shall include annually the identification of dental operations, hospitals and 

educational facilities (i.e., Universities and K-12 schools) within their service area; the production or 

adoption of best management practices (BMPs) for the appropriate industries as applicable; and 

promulgation of the BMP program. This option will meet the applicable federal regulatory guidance 

and requirements (EPA, 2010).

All of the NPDES-permitted domestic wastewater facilities were assessed using data available the 

WAFR database (as of July 2012) and the combined permitted flows were calculated. The result of 

combining the permitted flows from domestic facilities (1353 MGD) with those for the industrial 

facilities (785 MGD) yielded a total of 2138 MGD. In addition, the permitted industrial wastewater 

flows were also calculated, but with two caveats. First, not all of the industrial facilities have permit 

limits for flow. Second, for power plants that use once-through cooling water, those volumes were 

calculated separately from the total for other industrial sources. It is also presumed that “Intake 

Credits” can be provided for any mercury that is passing through the facility via once-through 

cooling water. However, other waste streams (e.g., discharges from coal ash storage facilities or 

ponds) are not excluded from subsequent investigations, whose findings may be addressed in 

mercury minimization plans.

 

8.3.2 NPDES Stormwater Discharges

The WLA for stormwater discharges with an MS4 permit has been determined to be generally 

not applicable. Any MS4 permittee is only responsible for reducing the anthropogenic loads 

associated with stormwater outfalls that it owns or otherwise has responsible control over, and it 

is not responsible for reducing other nonpoint source loads in its jurisdiction. Therefore, as the 

mercury levels that may be present in stormwater are a result of nonpoint sources linked to 

atmospheric deposition, no reductions are required of the MS4 permittees in Florida. However, 

if through the course of monitoring or in light of other information becoming available, local 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

85

sources of mercury under the control of the MS4 permittee or a co-permittee are found to exist, 

the permit holder will be subject to implementing necessary controls to reduce mercury loads 

associated with those local sources, so as to meet the requirement of this TMDL.

8.4 Margin of Safety

There are multiple lines of evidence to support the use of an implicit margin of safety in this 

TMDL. Consistent with the recommendations of the Allocation Technical Advisory Committee 

(Department, 2001), an implicit MOS was used in the development of this TMDL. Included in 

this implicit MOS is the assumption that all of the mercury in fish tissue is in the form of MeHg 

(the harmful fraction) and it is not. As discussed in Section 2.2, the application of a multifold 

increase in setting of the reference dose for MeHg is another significant component of the 

Margin of Safety (MOS). As noted previously, compared to other fish species, Largemouth 

Bass have higher overall tissue MeHg concentration because their position in the food chain 

dictates a longer food chain length for bioaccumulation. Use of Largemouth Bass for the TMDL 

target development provides another margin of safety to the TMDL as all other fish living at 

lower trophic levels will also benefit.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

86

Chapter 9: Ongoing Activities and Implementation 

Plan Development

9.1 Implementation Plan Development

Following the adoption of this TMDL by rule and adoption or approval by EPA, the Department 

will determine the best course of action regarding its implementation. The TMDL alone does not 

create new legal authorities and the LA and WLA discussed herein are enforceable to the extent 

independent legal authorities exist under state law. In general and depending on the 

pollutant(s) causing the waterbody impairment and the significance of the waterbody, the 

Department will select the best course of action leading to the development of a plan to restore 

the waterbody. Agency actions to implement this TMDL are subject to Section 403.067, Florida 

Statutes as well as the notice and hearing processes of Chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes. 

Implementation can be accomplished cooperatively with stakeholders by creating a Basin 

Management Action Plan, referred to as the BMAP. BMAPs are one mechanism through which 

TMDLs are implemented in Florida (see Subsection 403.067[7], F.S.). 

If the Department determines that a BMAP is needed to support the implementation of this 

TMDL, a BMAP will be developed through a transparent, stakeholder-driven process intended to 

result in a plan that is cost-effective and technically feasible, and that meets the restoration 

needs of the applicable waterbodies. Once adopted by order of the Department Secretary, 

BMAPs are enforceable through wastewater and municipal stormwater permits for point sources 

and through BMP implementation for nonpoint sources. 

However, in some basins and for some parameters the development of a BMAP is not the most 

efficient way to restore a waterbody such that it meets its designated uses. This is because 

some impairments result from the cumulative effects of a multitude of potential sources, both 

natural and anthropogenic. The Department can rely on existing permitting programs, local or 

industry initiatives, or a combination of both as a more cost-effective and simplified approach to 

identify the actions needed for restoration activities, while still meeting the requirements of 

Subsection 403.067(7), F.S. 

9.2 Ongoing Mercury Reduction Activities in Florida

An important element of implementation planning is consideration of mercury reductions already 

in place or in progress as well as the cost effectiveness of minimization efforts. Global 

anthropogenic emissions of mercury are the source of the vast majority of mercury deposition in 

Florida. Thus, Florida’s achievement of the TMDL is dependent upon not only out-of-state but 

out-of-country mercury emission reductions. Florida sources are, however, implementing 

mercury reduction efforts that must be taken into account. On the point source side, many 

NPDES Industrial and Domestic Permitted Sources are already regulated for mercury and it is 

anticipated EPA will be revising its effluent limitation guidelines to further limit discharges of 

metals from some source categories. On the non-point source side, as discussed previously, 

there has been a significant reduction in air emissions of mercury from Florida facilities. In 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

87

addition, there are also numerous, ongoing waste reduction efforts being implemented to reduce 

mercury from Florida’s waste stream.

Mercury Waste Reduction Strategies in Florida 

Florida is a recognized leader among states in managing mercury waste and reducing its use in 

products. Florida’s statutes and rules governing mercury predate federal regulations and helped 

drive national policy. 

DEP Waste Management Program involvement is characterized with the following activities 

which are also described with more detail below. The list starts with programs currently having 

the most potential or actual impact on reducing mercury in Florida’s environment. 

• Reducing mercury from batteries through legislation 

• Promoting recycling of mercury containing lamps and devices through regulation and 

education 

• Helping operators safely use drum top crushers according to regulation for volume reduction of 

spent fluorescent lamps 

• Recycling mercury from homeowners and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators 

through Florida’s Household Hazardous Waste program 

• Providing a convenient mercury recycling agreement for state and municipal agencies 

• Innovatively reducing mercury use in hospitals, 

• Providing mercury thermometer exchange programs, 

• Adopting the Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC) program and leading in the nation in 

recycling mercury thermostats, 

• Participating in the national End of Life Vehicle Solutions (ELVS) program for auto mercury 

• Creating a mercury amalgam management BMP brochure, 

• Requiring recycling of mercury-containing lamps and devices in the Green Lodging program, 

• Requiring recycling of bilge pump switches in the Clean Marina program, 

• Recommending removal of mercury-containing lamps and devices from buildings prior to 

demolition, 

• Developing beneficial reuse of fluorescent lamp glass generated through recycling 

• Providing data on metal loading in ash and leachate from ash disposal 

Federal legislation has also helped reduce mercury waste in Florida. Florida has adopted the 

Universal Waste Rule to help manage waste mercury and ensure its proper recycling. The 

federal ban on sale of mercury fever thermometers has helped eliminate one of the largest 

sources of mercury in the home. 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

88

Regulations and Statutes 

Chapter 62-737, Florida Administrative Code, titled “The Management of Spent MercuryContaining Lamps and Devices Destined for Recycling” details requirements for recycling and 

has contributed to better management of mercury waste in Florida. Statutory authority for the 

environmentally sound management of mercury-containing lamps and devices, elimination of 

mercury in packaging, and elimination of mercury from batteries sold in Florida (Sections 

403.7186, 403.7191, and 403.7192, Florida Statutes, respectively) have been important 

components of proper mercury waste management in Florida. Rules and Statutes pertaining to 

mercury can be found at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/mercury/pages/laws.htm. 

Regulations from other states have also helped mercury waste management in Florida. An 

example is the strict labeling regulations adopted in some New England states. Product 

manufacturers have used labeling on products sold nation-wide as a result which helps show 

Florida consumers what products contain mercury and should be recycled. 

Reduction of Mercury from Batteries 

Legislation [403.7192, Florida Statutes] sets limitations on the mercury content of alkalinemanganese/zinc-carbon batteries and button batteries; prohibits sale of button-shaped batteries 

with a mercury electrode; and establishes a disposal ban and take back requirements for other 

batteries with a mercury electrode. This has resulted in a reduction of mercury in municipal solid 

waste and a concomitant reduction in mercury content in sentinel species, primarily freshwater 

fish and wading birds. 

Mercury-Containing Lamps Recycling 

No report on mercury management in Florida would be complete without discussing how lamps 

are recycled. Florida currently has one permitted mercury reclamation/recovery facility, one 

permitted mercury recovery facility, and a third mercury recovery facility in the permitting 

process. This means we have the ability to recycle our mercury in-state and keep recycling 

costs lower for our regulated community. Handler/transporter businesses register with the 

Department to provide more transparency in their operations. 

Drum Top Crushers for Fluorescent Lamps 

Another aspect of lamp recycling in Florida is the use of drum top crushers (DTC) for fluorescent 

lamps. These devices can be used for recycling a generator’s lamps on site. The ease of 

operation and convenience make them a popular method of lamp management in Florida, and 

facilities with storage issues find them particularly appealing. A 2010 interpretation of 62-

737.400(6)(b), F.A.C., resulted in an additional use memo that allows a DTC to be put on a truck 

and taken to the generator’s site. At least one company is using this to recycle the copious 

numbers of lamps generated at tanning salons, a class of generators that have historically not 

recycled their lamps. The memo and other information about drum top crushers is here: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/mercury/pages/drum-top.htm

Household Hazardous Waste Program 

The Department’s strong state-wide Household Hazardous Waste program has been an 

important contributor to the recycling of mercury statewide. Thermometers, fluorescent lamps, 

thermostats, other mercury containing devices and even bottles of elemental mercury have 

been properly recycled and kept out of the waste stream. The HHW web pages are here: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/hazardous/pages/household.htm .
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

89

Recycling Agreement for State and Municipal Government Entities 

The Florida Department of Management Services has provided a State Purchasing Agreement 

for municipal and state government facilities to recycle their mercury-containing lamps and 

devices at a competitive price. The State Purchasing Agreement that is renewed annually can 

be viewed here: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/mercury/pages/contract.htm. 

Hospital Mercury Reduction Program 

Starting in 1998, various hospitals were visited and received recycling information and, more 

importantly, information on alternatives to mercury-containing devices. Presentations at 

conferences for hospital waste management personnel also helped disseminate this 

information. Hospitals learned how to store and recycle their mercury-containing lamps and 

devices. Perhaps the most important component was a strong push to eliminate the use of 

mercury sphygmomanometers. Working with the national programs Hospitals for a Healthy 

Environment and Healthcare Without Harm brought additional resources to Florida’s hospitals. 

The Department also worked with Florida’s Department of Health to write a letter banning the 

use of mercury sphygmomanometers in Florida’s health clinics, resulting in the recycling of 

these devices as they have been replaced with mercury-free alternatives. Two reports on the 

medical program can be found here: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/mercury/pages/medical_facilities.htm . 

Staff continues to work with Hospitals for a Healthy Environment as a reviewer and judge for 

their “Making Medicine Mercury Free” annual national awards program. 

Thermometer Exchange Programs 

The Department’s Pollution Prevention efforts helped develop more mercury awareness by 

holding and participating in mercury thermometer exchange programs in various parts of the 

state and also through programs during Earth Day celebrations. These collection programs 

were an important step that preceded the federal ban on sale of mercury fever thermometers for 

home use. 

Thermostat Recycling Corporation Participation in Florida 

Thermostat Recycling Corporation is a national product stewardship program. Member heating, 

ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) contractors and wholesalers can use the program to 

send mercury thermostats for recycling at no cost. Since its inception, Florida has led the 

country in number of participating wholesalers and in thermostats recycled. Recently many of 

our Household Hazardous Waste programs have also become TRC members, broadening the 

reach of the program. The website for the national program is http://www.thermostatrecycle.org/pages/the-program

Automotive Mercury Recycling 

A small amount of mercury has historically been used in automobiles. Small ampoules are used 

in tilt switches in anti-lock brake systems (ABS), trunk lighting systems and sometimes in hood 

lighting systems. Although they have been engineered out of most vehicles, millions of vehicles 

are still in operation with these switches intact. As they aged, the majority of them were being 

sent to scrap yards with the mercury still in the vehicle until a national program was set up in 

2000 to capture these small ampoules for recycling. ELVs (End of Life Vehicle Solutions) even 

provided a bounty for the switches until their funds expired. This program has helped keep tons 

of elemental mercury out of the waste stream nationwide. Florida has collected at least 318.15 

pounds of mercury from over 145,000 switches to date. More information is available at 

http://www.elvsolutions.org/ .
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

90

Dental Amalgam Management Guidance 

In 2000, Florida DEP developed and printed a brochure, “Best Management Practices for Scrap 

Dental Amalgam.” By partnering with the Florida Department of Health, Florida Department of 

Transportation and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Department 

ensured that this guidance included proper management solutions that were acceptable by all 

agencies affected. This guidance includes a recommendation for Florida dentists to install 

amalgam separators to eliminate the greatest portion of the mercury generated in a dental 

operatory. The Department maintains its dialogue with the Florida Dental Association to ensure 

the most up-to-date regulatory information is available to their member dentists. The brochure 

can be downloaded from here: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/mercury/pages/medical_facilities.htm. 

Green Lodging Program 

The Green Lodging program has been instrumental in creating a database of hotels and motels 

across Florida that have adopted green practices. With several hundred designated facilities to 

date, this program has helped establish proper recycling programs for mercury-containing lamps 

and devices. The program website is here: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/greenlodging/default.htm

Clean Marina Program 

The Clean Marina program includes recycling mercury bilge pump switches in their “Clean 

Marina Action Plan Guidebook.” Keeping this source of mercury from being dumped in our 

waterways is important. There are other smaller sources of mercury on boats and at marinas 

that also require proper management like mercury containing lamps and thermostats. Visit their 

web site here: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cleanmarina/

Deconstruction and Demolition Guidance 

Deconstruction and demolition of existing structures is on-going. A booklet, “Recommended 

Management Practices for the Removal of Hazardous Materials from Buildings Prior to 

Demolition” includes information on identifying and properly managing mercury-containing 

components that should be recycled. See the booklet here: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/hazardous/fact/c&dwaste.pdf

Beneficial Reuse for Fluorescent Lamp Glass Generated Through Recycling 

The Department will start using fluorescent lamp glass (FLG) as a substitute for a percentage of 

the washed sand aggregate in flowable fill used to remediate contaminated petroleum sites in 

north Florida. This glass, generated by mercury processors while recycling fluorescent lamps, 

has traditionally been difficult to recycle and the current disposal method has primarily been as 

daily cover at landfills. There is a potential demand for 50,000-75,000 tons/year of FLG for this 

innovative program, exceeding the current estimates of FLG supply in Florida. 

Mercury in Waste-to-Energy Plant Ash Database 

In Florida, the ash generated from solid waste combustors (Waste to Energy, WTE) that 

primarily receive and burn solid waste collected from residential, commercial and industrial 

sources is regulated under 62-701 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Under Chapter 

62-701, F.A.C., any WTE ash disposed of in Florida must be placed in disposal units that have 

either a composite liner or a double liner and the leachate from these lined units must be 

properly managed. In addition, if not addressed in another Department permit or certification,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

91

WTE facilities must obtain waste processing facility solid waste permits to address management 

of the incoming solid waste stream and the ash generated by the combustion process. These 

permits ensure the ash is then properly disposed of or recycled. 

Ash residue may only be recycled or disposed of in a landfill. If the ash is recycled, the recycler 

must demonstrate that processed ash residue or products using ash residue will not endanger 

human health or the environment. Exposure risks to be considered include, but are not limited 

to, inhalation, ingestion, skin contact, and migration to soil, surface and ground water. If the ash 

is disposed of it may only be placed or deposited in a lined landfill with a leachate collection and 

removal system and liner system that complies with the most protective liner requirements 

detailed in chapter 62-701, F.A.C. 

In order to inform the public and regulated community of the metals loading in ash and leachate 

from ash disposal, the Department has developed a web-based tool that allows the user to 

query historical data on the level of metal contamination present in WTE ash for each ash 

generating facility in Florida. While as of December 8, 2011 this data is no longer required (the 

ash rule, Chapter 62-702, was repealed), the Department believes the previously compiled data 

is still representative of WTE ash and leachate in Florida. The results of the historical chemical 

analysis of ash from WTE facilities located in Florida are presented in the form of automated 

reports that can be found at the following web address: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/ash/wte_rprtfrm.asp

9.3 Considerations in Wasteload Allocation

Mercury contributions from point sources in Florida are estimated to be 23 kilograms (50.5 

pounds) per year. This contribution is insignificant when compared with nonpoint source 

contributions from the state, nation and around the world. In addition, NPDES Industrial and 

Domestic permitted sources are already regulated for mercury and it is anticipated EPA will be 

revising its effluent limitation guidelines to further limit discharges of metals from some source 

categories. As Florida point sources are such an insignificant portion of Florida’s mercury 

loading when compared with nonpoint sources, it is not appropriate or necessary to assign 

specific allocations as part of this TMDL. NPDES Sources may be required through their permit 

to determine if their facility adds to the mercury load or if the presence of mercury is due solely 

to facility pass-through or because of storm water conveyance. Facilities that do not add to the 

mercury load will not need to have a permit condition to address mercury in their effluent; 

whereas facilities that do add to the mercury load may receive an effluent limit and will be 

required to meet the limit or develop and implement a waste minimization plan if one is not 

already in place. In light of the foregoing, this TMDL will not require specific allocations or 

require reductions from point source discharges; however, cost-effective mercury minimization 

programs will ensure mercury discharges from point sources, in total, will not exceed the WLA. 

9.4 Considerations in Load Allocation

As stated previously, global anthropogenic emissions of mercury are the source of the vast 

majority of mercury deposition in Florida. However, Florida sources are implementing 

significant mercury reduction efforts. Mercury emissions in Florida have decreased over the 

past 20-25 years due to air pollution emission reductions required by the federal Clean Air Act 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

92

(including the Clean Air Interstate Rule that has been replaced by the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule) and Florida’s rules implementing the federal Clean Air Act. In light of or anticipation of 

these rules, many of Florida’s industries have installed sophisticated mercury controls resulting 

in dramatic emission reductions. In 1988, Florida’s anthropogenic mercury emissions were 

approximately 70-75 megagrams (165,300 - 154,300 pounds) and by 1997, these emissions 

were approximately 14 megagrams (30,800 pounds) per year (see Figure 3.9). Based upon 

emissions estimates for 2009, Florida’s mercury emissions decreased to 3,169 pounds (see 

Table 3.7). This represents a significant and dramatic reduction in mercury air emissions.

More specifically, the mercury emission reductions in the waste-to-energy and coal-fired electric 

utility industries have been dramatic over the last two decades. These reductions are discussed 

in much more detail in Chapter 3 of this document. As indicated in Table 3.4, many of Florida’s 

coal fired electric utilities have installed control equipment that is reducing mercury emissions 

from this industry. Further, it is anticipated that implementation of other Clean Air Act programs 

such as Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) for the cement and power industry will result in still further reductions in 

mercury emissions in Florida over the next several years. EPA estimates that its utility MACT 

rule would result in approximately a 90% reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired electric 

utilities based on pre-controlled emissions. Based upon the progress in reducing mercury 

emissions from coal-fired electric utilities in Florida and the fact that EPA has established a 

maximum achievable technology standard for mercury from such utilities that is reasonably 

anticipated to take effect by 2015, this TMDL will not require additional reductions of mercury air 

emissions from existing coal-fired electric utilities in Florida. In addition, the Department will not 

be opening or revising federal, Clean Air Act permits as part of the Clean Water Act’s TMDL 

program.

Achievement of this TMDL is dependent upon reduction of global mercury sources. As 

discussed further in Appendix L, computer modeling estimates of the fractional contributions of 

Florida sources to Florida’s lakes and rivers/streams was generally below 5% with only ~4% of 

the sites having contributions in excess of 10%. Based upon this effort, it appears that 

eliminating the fraction of atmospheric Hg loadings to Florida lakes and streams/rivers was 

predicted to be quite small, with (weighted) reductions averaging about 0.01 and 0.02 mg/kg for 

large and small lakes, respectively and about 0.01 and 0.02 mg/kg for rivers and streams, 

respectively.

9.5 Identification of Impaired Waters

Another impact that this TMDL may have is on the Department’s Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) 

listing process. The IWR listing is a continuous process that rotates through the State’s 52 

hydrologic basins to identify water segments impaired for various pollutants. Mercury fish tissue 

impairment will continuously be one of the parameters that the IWR listing will cover. After this 

TMDL becomes effective, if new water segments are listed for mercury fish tissue impairment, 

the Department will examine possible sources of mercury that may have resulted in the listing. 

Unless the Department finds that the new listing is caused by conditions that are not covered in 

this TMDL (e.g. local emission or effluent sources that are not covered by this TMDL), the 

Department will considered the listing is covered by this TMDL and, therefore, no new TMDL will 

be developed. 
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Bureau of Watershed Restoration 

SOUTHEAST DISTRICT • SOUTHEAST COAST–BISCAYNE BAY BASIN 

FINAL TMDL Report

Fecal Coliform TMDL for 

C-14 (Cypress Creek) Canal (WBID 3270), 

C-13 West (Middle River) Canal (WBID 3273), 

C-13 East (Middle River) Canal (WBID 3274), 

C-12 (Plantation) Canal (WBID 3276), 

New River (North Fork) (WBID 3276A), 

New River Canal (South) (WBID 3277A), 

North New River (WBID 3277C), 

Dania Cut-off Canal (WBID 3277E), 

C-11 (South New River) Canal (WBID 3279), and 

C-11 (East) Canal (WBID 3281)

Moira Rojas 

May 16, 2012
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

1 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Report 

This report presents the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for fecal coliform bacteria for 10 

waterbodies located in the Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basin: C-14 (Cypress Creek) Canal, 

C-13 West (Middle River) Canal, C-13 East (Middle River) Canal, C-12 (Plantation) Canal, New 

River (North Fork), New River Canal (South), North New River Canal, Dania Cut-off Canal, C-11 

(South New River) Canal, and C-11 (East) Canal. These waterbodies were verified as impaired 

for fecal coliform and therefore were included on the Verified Lists of impaired waters for the 

Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basin that were adopted by Secretarial Order in May 2006 or

November 2010. The TMDLs establish allowable fecal coliform loadings to these segments that 

would restore the waterbodies so that they meet the applicable water quality criterion for fecal 

coliform.

1.2 Identification of Waterbody 

For assessment purposes, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) 

has divided the Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basin into water assessment polygons with a 

unique waterbody identification (WBID) number for each watershed or stream reach. Table 1.1

lists the WBID numbers for the waterbodies addressed in this report. 

These waterbodies comprise 10 of the 22 waterbody segments in the Broward County Planning 

Unit of the Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basin. WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3276, 3277A, 3279, and 

3281 are 6 of 19 waterbody segments in the Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basin included on 

the initial 1998 303(d) list submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(Department) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The initial 1998 303(d) list 

was incorporated into a 1999 Consent Decree between the EPA and Earthjustice. 

Table 1.1. WBID Numbers for the Waterbodies Included in This TMDL Report

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the WBID number, and Column 2 lists the waterbody segment. 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

3270 C-14 (Cypress Creek) Canal

3273 C-13 West (Middle River) Canal

3274 C-13 East (Middle River) Canal

3276 C-12 (Plantation) Canal

3276A New River (North Fork)

3277A New River Canal (South)

3277C North New River Canal

3277E Dania Cut-off Canal

3279 C-11 (South New River) Canal 

3281 C-11 (East) Canal

 
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

2

The initial list used data from sampling stations listed in the Department’s 1996 305(b) report, 

which incorporated the best available information at the time to generally characterize the 

quality of Florida’s waters. However, some of the delineations of waterbody areas and locations 

of sampling stations for the 1998 303(d) list were inaccurate due to metadata limitations at that 

time. 

With the primary goal of providing more accurate assessments, the Department has revised the 

delineations over time. The EPA has labeled the redrawing of WBID boundaries 

“resegmentation,” as the original stations corresponded to specific WBID areas or segments. 

Resegmented WBIDs are those WBIDs that have been altered from the initial 1998 303(d) 

Consent Decree or previous cycle boundaries. As a result of the resegmentation process for 

the Group 4 basins, there are currently 37 Consent Decree waterbody segments in the 

Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basin, including WBIDs 3274, 3276A, 3277C, and 3277E. This 

number is based on Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) Run 41x. 

The WBIDs addressed in these TMDLs are located within Broward County (Figures 1.1 and

1.2), which comprises a highly engineered and managed, complex system of canals. The 

hydrology within the county is manipulated by a series of water control structures, pumps, and 

levees that have altered the natural hydroperiods and flows of these watersheds (Broward 

County Department of Planning and Environmental Protection [BCDPEP] 2001a), and have 

resulted in the effective management of water in the region, allowing for the current urban 

development and agricultural landscape (South Florida Water Management District [SFWMD] 

2010a). 

The primary drainage system in the county, managed by the SFWMD, comprises nine major 

canals and their drainage basins: Hillsboro Canal, C-14 (Cypress Creek) Canal, Pompano 

Canal, C-13 (Middle River) Canal, C-12 (Plantation) Canal, North New River Canal, C-11 (South 

New River) Canal, C-9 (Snake Creek) Canal, and C-10 Canal. Except for the western segment 

of the C-11, which is normally back-pumped into the Everglades’ Water Conservation Areas 

(WCAs), these major canals, along with secondary and tertiary canals, eventually drain to 

estuarine waters (BCDPEP 2001a) (Figure 1.3). 

The canals were built to meet population needs by controlling water levels and movement for 

water supply, flood control, drainage, and navigation, in addition to providing water necessary to 

maintain natural communities in lakes, wetlands, rivers, and estuaries (SFWMD 2010a). Water 

levels are managed to maintain ground water levels during dry periods, which is particularly 

important for water supply needs by preventing saltwater intrusion. During these periods, stored 

water can be delivered throughout the county to help meet local urban and agricultural needs 

and prevent saltwater intrusion. During wet periods, the canals remove excess water from 

drainage basins to prevent flooding. 

Within urban areas, the canals are used primarily for flood control. However, secondary uses 

include the drainage of land for development, wellfield recharge for local municipalities, and the 

discharge of excess water to and from the WCAs (Cooper and Lane 1987), with primary canals 

functioning as an outlet for excess water from the Everglades and Lake Okeechobee during wet 

periods. 
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

3

Figure 1.1. Location of WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 3277C, 

3277E, 3279, and 3281 in the Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basin

and Major Hydrologic and Geopolitical Features in the Area 
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

4

Figure 1.2. Location of WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 3277C, 

3277E, 3279, and 3281 in Broward County and Major Hydrologic 

and Geopolitical Features in the Area 
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

5

Figure 1.3. Location of Canals, WCAs, and Water Control Structures in Broward 

County (SFWMD 2010a) 

All canal segments contain either a water control structure within them or are directly influenced 

by the operation of an upstream or downstream control structure (SFWMD 2010a) (Figure 1.3). 

Structures regulate the flow and level of water in these canals. Coastal structures also prevent 

salt water from a tidal or storm surge from entering canals that discharge to tide. 

Canals are notably different from most natural waterbodies. As a result of their design, 

management, and maintenance, these systems provide limited support for aquatic life. In 

addition, water levels and flow can have extreme fluctuations depending on operational needs. 

While canals are designed to move high flows at high velocities, during periods of drought and 

dry season operations, they may be stagnant for extended periods, and some may contain little 

or no water (SFWMD 2010a). 

The C-14 (Cypress Creek) Canal (WBID 3270) is located in northern Broward County. The

western portion of this watershed was designed for 1 in 10-year flood protection and the eastern 

portion for 1 in 30-year flood protection (SFWMD 2010a). In addition to flood protection, the C-
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

6

14 Canal and its associated water control structures supply water, maintain the water table, 

transport excess water from WCA-2A to tidewater, and intercept and control seepage from 

WCA-2A (SFWMD 2010a). Although in general the C-14 Canal flows to the eastern estuarine 

waters from WCA-2A, the S-37B structure can act as a separator based on specific hydrologic 

conditions (BCDPEP 2001a) (Figures 1.2 and 1.3). 

The C-13 (Middle River) Canal, located in north-central Broward County, is divided into an

eastern portion (WBID 3274) and a western portion (WBID 3273). The western portion includes 

the entire freshwater section of the C-13 Canal. In general, water flows from the confluence of 

the C-42 Canal to the eastern estuarine waters via the S-36 water control structure (BCDPEP 

2001a). The canals and associated water control structures in the C-13 watershed provide 

flood protection and drainage, supply water, intercept and control seepage from WCA-2B, and 

maintain the elevation of the ground water table west of S-36 to prevent saltwater intrusion 

(SFWMD 2010a) (Figures 1.2 and 1.3). 

The C-12 Canal (WBID 3276) is located in east-central Broward County. The canal and its 

associated water control structure provide flood protection and drainage, and maintain ground 

water levels west of S-33 (SFWMD 2010a). The C-12 is the headwaters of the North Fork of 

the New River. Unlike other canals in Broward County, the canal has no direct or indirect 

connection to seepage water from the WCAs; water supply in the watershed is limited to rainfall. 

Studies have determined that the watershed is stagnant (no flow occurs) 85% of the time at the 

S-33 structure (BCDPEP 2001a), and thus the canal is considered a “closed” waterbody, 

receiving inputs mainly from ground water and stormwater based on rainfall patterns (BCDPEP 

2001a) (Figures 1.2 and 1.3). 

The New River watershed, located in east-central Broward County, is one of two large estuarine 

reaches in Broward County, the other being the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) (BCDPEP 2001a)

(Figures 1.2 and 1.3). It is divided into three distinct areas: the main New River, the North Fork 

(WBID 3276A), and the South Fork (WBID 3277A). The North Fork, a shallow, meandering 

tributary of the New River, has minimal tidal flow and limited exchanges of tidal waters 

(BCDPEP 2001b). Most of the North Fork’s freshwater input is stormwater, with seasonal 

ground water contributions (BCDPEP 2001a). The South Fork, made up of two freshwater 

tributaries, the C-11 and the North New River Canal (WBID 3277C), has a relatively dynamic, 

high flow rate and does not consistently receive flow from C-12 Canal discharges. As a result, 

the North Fork functions mainly as a tidal “pond” characterized by stagnant waters with

restricted outflow to the main New River (BCDPEP 2001a). The southwestern portion of the 

South Fork includes a large natural area (Pond Apple Slough) as well as other vegetated

expanses (Griffey Tract) containing large areas of mangrove forests and leatherfern stands 

(BCDPEP 2001a) (Figures 1.2 and 1.3). 

The North New River Canal (WBID 3277C) is located in east-central Broward County. The

North New River was excavated and extended to drain the Everglades and to provide a 

transportation route between Lake Okeechobee and the east coast (SFWMD 2010a). This 

canal flows to the southeast, discharging to the South Fork of the New River east of the 

G-54 lock (SFWMD 2010a). The freshwater portion of the New River Canal (North) is a 

bordering waterway from the WCA tailwaters to an estuarine discharge point at the G-54 

structure (BCDPEP 2001a) (Figures 1.2 and 1.3). 
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

7

The C-11 (South New River) Canal, located in southwest Broward County, is divided into a

western watershed (WBID 3279) and an eastern watershed (WBID 3281). The C-11 extends 

from the L-37 Borrow Canal on the west to the S-13 water control structure. The eastern portion 

of the canal flows to the east, discharging to the South Fork of the New River. Any excess 

water in the eastern watershed is discharged to the east by the C-11 and S-13 to the South Fork 

of the New River. Additional quantities of excess water from the western watershed can be 

discharged to the eastern watershed through the S-13A water control structure if the S-13 is not 

pumping to capacity (SFWMD 2010a). The western segment of the C-11 is normally 

backpumped into the WCAs (BCDPEP 2001a) (Figures 1.2 and 1.3). 

The Dania Cut-off Canal (WBID 3277E) is located in the southeast corner of Broward County. 

Fresh water in the canal originates mainly from the C-11 Canal to the west (upstream) of the 

Dania Cut-off Canal and is controlled by releases through the S-13 water control structure. 

The Dania Cut-off Canal flows east to join the ICW just south of Port Everglades. Tidewater 

primarily comes from the Port Everglades Inlet, with some tidal interaction also occurring with 

the South Fork of the New River in the western portion of the Dania Cut-off Canal (BCDPEP 

2001a) (Figures 1.2 and 1.3). 

WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281 are located in 

the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and Everglades physiographic regions, which occupy the eastern 

portions of Broward, Miami–Dade, and Palm Beach Counties. In Broward County, the ridge is 

composed of both sand and limestone (Schroeder et al. 1956). The Everglades, an area of 

organic soils, is located west of the ridge and is dedicated primarily to agriculture and 

conservation areas (Schroeder et al. 1956). 

This part of southeastern Florida is underlain by the Biscayne aquifer, an unconfined and 

shallow part of the surficial aquifer system that consists of highly permeable limestone and less

permeable sandstone and sand (Fish 1988). The aquifer supplies large quantities of water for 

municipal, industrial, and irrigational use in Broward County. The Biscayne aquifer is 

particularly susceptible to contamination because it is unconfined, highly permeable, and 

shallow, and because it is located near the surface in highly urbanized areas (Whitman1997). 

Potential sources of contamination include saltwater encroachment and infiltration of 

contaminants carried in canal water, direct infiltration of contaminants (chemicals or pesticides 

applied to or spilled on the land, and fertilizer carried in surface runoff), landfills, septic tanks, 

sewage plant treatment ponds, and wells used to dispose of stormwater runoff or industrial 

waste (Miller 1990). Additional information about the hydrology and geology of the area is 

available in the Broward County, Florida Historical Water Quality Atlas: 1972–1997 (BCDPEP 

2001a).

Table 1.2 lists the area (in square miles and acres) within each WBID boundary. Land use in 

the WBIDs is predominantly medium- and high-density residential. 
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

8

Table 1.2. Area within Each WBID Boundary in Square Miles and Acres 

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the WBID number, Column 2 lists the waterbody name, Column 3 lists the 

WBID area in square miles, and Column 4 lists the WBID area in acres. 

WBID Waterbody

WBID Area 

(square miles)

WBID Area 

(acres)

3270 C-14 (Cypress Creek) Canal 56.1 35,884

3273 C-13 West (Middle River) Canal 20.6 13,188

3274 C-13 East (Middle River) Canal 15.2 9,723

3276 C-12 (Plantation) Canal 8.8 5,621

3276A New River (North Fork) 7.1 4,523

3277A New River Canal (South) 16.1 10,281

3277C North New River Canal 8.7 5,555

3277E Dania Cut-off Canal 7.4 4,719

3279 C-11 (South New River) Canal 70.9 45,367

3281 C-11 (East) Canal 22.8 14,623

1.3 Background 

This report was developed as part of the Department’s watershed management approach for 

restoring and protecting state waters and addressing TMDL Program requirements. The 

watershed approach, which is implemented using a cyclical management process that rotates 

through the state’s 52 river basins over a 5-year cycle, provides a framework for implementing 

the TMDL Program–related requirements of the 1972 federal Clean Water Act and the 1999 

Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) (Chapter 99-223, Section 403.067, Laws of Florida).

A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate 

and still meet water quality standards, including its applicable water quality criteria and its 

designated uses. TMDLs are developed for waterbodies that are verified as not meeting their 

water quality standards. They provide important water quality restoration goals that will guide 

restoration activities.

This TMDL report will be followed by the development and implementation of a restoration plan 

designed to reduce the amount of fecal coliform that caused the verified impairment of WBIDs 

3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281. These activities will 

depend heavily on the active participation of the SFWMD, local governments, businesses, and 

other stakeholders. The Department will work with these organizations and individuals to 

undertake or continue reductions in the discharge of pollutants and achieve the established 

TMDLs for impaired waterbodies.
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

9

Chapter 2: DESCRIPTION OF WATER QUALITY 

PROBLEM

2.1 Statutory Requirements and Rulemaking History 

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to submit to the EPA lists of 

surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards (impaired waters) and 

establish a TMDL for each pollutant causing the impairment of listed waters on a schedule. The 

Department has developed such lists, commonly referred to as 303(d) lists, since 1992. The list 

of impaired waters in each basin, referred to as the Verified List, is also required by the FWRA 

(Subsection 403.067[4], Florida Statutes [F.S.]); the state’s 303(d) list is amended annually to 

include basin updates.

Florida identified 19 impaired waterbodies in the Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basin on its 

initial 1998 303(d) list. As a result of the resegmentation process for the Group 4 basins, there 

are currently 37 Consent Decree waterbody segments in the Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay 

Basin (see Section 1.2). However, the FWRA (Section 403.067, F.S.) stated that all Florida 

303(d) lists created before the adoption of the FWRA were for planning purposes only and 

directed the Department to develop, and adopt by rule, a new science-based methodology to 

identify impaired waters. After a long rulemaking process, the Environmental Regulation 

Commission adopted the new methodology as Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code 

(F.A.C.) (Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule, or IWR), in April 2001; the rule was 

modified in 2006 and 2007.

2.2 Information on Verified Impairment

The Department used the IWR to assess water quality impairments in WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 

3276, 3276A, 3277A, 3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281, and has verified that these waterbody 

segments are impaired for fecal coliform bacteria. The verified impairment was based on the 

observation that, with a 90% confidence limit based on binomial distribution, more than 10% of 

the values exceeded the assessment threshold of 400 counts per 100 milliliters (counts/100mL)

(see Section 3.2 for details) in all these WBIDs.

WBIDs 3274, 3276A, and 3277A were verified as impaired during the Cycle 1 verified period 

(January 1, 1998–June 30, 2005). These impairments were confirmed in the Cycle 2 verified 

period (January 1, 2003–June 30, 2010). WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3276, 3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 

3281 were verified as impaired during the Cycle 2 verified period. 

Tables 2.1a summarizes fecal coliform monitoring results used for verified impairment for the 

Cycle 1 verified period for WBIDs 3274, 3276A, and 3277A. Table 2.1b summarizes fecal 

monitoring results used for verified impairment for the Cycle 2 assessment (based on IWR Run

41x) for all WBIDs. As they better represent the current conditions, only the results for the 

Cycle 2 verified period were used in the TMDL development process.
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

10

Table 2.1a. Summary of Fecal Coliform Monitoring Data for WBIDs 3274, 

3276A, and 3277A During the Cycle 1 Verified Period (January 1, 

1998–June 30, 2005) 

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the parameter, and Columns 2 through 4 list the WBID numbers and 

corresponding Cycle 1 results.

Parameter

WBID 

3274

WBID 

3276A

WBID 

3277A

Total number of samples 205 104 144

IWR-required number of exceedances for 

the Verified List 27 15 20

Number of observed exceedances 39 45 22

Number of observed nonexceedances 166 59 122

Number of seasons during which samples 

were collected 4 4 4 

Table 2.1b. Summary of Fecal Coliform Monitoring Data for WBIDs 3270, 

3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281

During the Cycle 2 Verified Period (January 1, 2003–June 30, 

2010) 

This is an 11-column table. Column 1 lists the parameter, and Columns 2 through 11 list the WBID numbers and 

corresponding Cycle 2 results.

Parameter

WBID 

3270

WBID 

3273

WBID 

3276

WBID 

3279

WBID 

3281

WBID 

3277C

WBID 

3277E

WBID 

3274

WBID 

3276A

WBID 

3277A

Total number of 

samples 144 70 57 74 30 84 67 153 53 111

IWR-required number of 

exceedances for the 

Verified List

20 11 10 12 6 13 11 21 9 16

Number of observed 

exceedances 23 11 13 21 14 16 18 50 39 30

Number of observed 

nonexceedances 121 59 44 53 16 68 49 103 14 81

Number of seasons 

during which samples 

were collected

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Highest observation

(counts/100mL) 5,200 2,600 7,400 9,800 9,100 5,800 9,400 9,600 10,000 6,400

Lowest observation

(counts/100mL) 1.8 1.8 6 1.8 44 1.8 1.8 1 150 7 

Median observation

(counts/100mL) 110 69 94 205 400 98 250 244 630 220

Mean observation

(counts/100mL) 282 226 570 510 1,415 288 823 570 1,734 675
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

11

Chapter 3. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICABLE WATER 

QUALITY STANDARDS AND TARGETS

3.1 Classification of the Waterbody and Criterion Applicable to the TMDLs 

Florida’s surface waters are protected for five designated use classifications, as follows:

Class I Potable water supplies

Class II Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, wellbalanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV Agricultural water supplies

Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters 

currently in this class)

All WBIDs addressed in this report are Class III waterbodies, with a designated use of 

recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and 

wildlife. WBIDs 3274, 3276A, 3277A, and 3277E are Class III marine waterbodies, and WBIDs 

3270, 3273, 3276, 3277C, 3279, and 3281 are Class III freshwater waterbodies. The criterion 

applicable to these TMDLs is the Class III (marine and freshwater) criterion for fecal coliform.

3.2 Applicable Water Quality Standards and Numeric Water Quality Target 

Numeric criteria for bacterial quality are expressed in terms of fecal coliform bacteria 

concentration. The water quality criterion for the protection of Class III waters (marine and 

freshwater), as established by Rule 62-302, F.A.C., states the following:

Fecal Coliform Bacteria:

The most probable number (MPN) or membrane filter (MF) counts per 100 

mL of fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed a monthly average of 200, nor 

exceed 400 in 10 percent of the samples, nor exceed 800 on any one day.

The criterion states that monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on a 

minimum of 10 samples taken over a 30-day period. There were insufficient data (fewer than 10 

samples in a given month) available to evaluate the geometric mean criterion for fecal coliform 

bacteria. Therefore, the criterion selected for these TMDLs was not to exceed 400 

counts/100mL for fecal coliform. 
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

128

Chapter 6: DETERMINATION OF THE TMDL

6.1 Expression and Allocation of the TMDL 

The objective of a TMDL is to provide a basis for allocating acceptable loads among all of the 

known pollutant sources in a watershed so that appropriate control measures can be 

implemented and water quality standards achieved. A TMDL is expressed as the sum of all 

point source loads (wasteload allocations, or WLAs), nonpoint source loads (load allocations, or 

LAs), and an appropriate margin of safety (MOS), which takes into account any uncertainty 

concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality:

TMDL = ∑ WLAs + ∑ LAs + MOS

As discussed earlier, the WLA is broken out into separate subcategories for wastewater 

discharges and stormwater discharges regulated under the NPDES Program:

TMDL ≅ ∑ WLAswastewater + ∑ WLAsNPDES Stormwater + ∑ LAs + MOS

It should be noted that the various components of the revised TMDL equation may not sum up 

to the value of the TMDL because (a) the WLA for NPDES stormwater is typically based on the 

percent reduction needed for nonpoint sources and is also accounted for within the LA, and (b) 

TMDL components can be expressed in different terms (for example, the WLA for stormwater is 

typically expressed as a percent reduction, and the WLA for wastewater is typically expressed 

as mass per day).

WLAs for stormwater discharges are typically expressed as “percent reduction” because it is 

very difficult to quantify the loads from MS4s (given the numerous discharge points) and to 

distinguish loads from MS4s from other nonpoint sources (given the nature of stormwater 

transport). The permitting of stormwater discharges also differs from the permitting of most 

wastewater point sources. Because stormwater discharges cannot be centrally collected, 

monitored, and treated, they are not subject to the same types of effluent limitations as 

wastewater facilities, and instead are required to meet a performance standard of providing 

treatment to the “maximum extent practical” through the implementation of best management 

practices (BMPs).

This approach is consistent with federal regulations (40 CFR § 130.2[I]), which state that TMDLs 

can be expressed in terms of mass per time (e.g., pounds per day), toxicity, or other appropriate 

measure. The TMDLs for WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 3277C, 3277E, 3279, 

and 3281 are expressed as a percent reduction, and represent the maximum daily fecal coliform 

load each stream can assimilate without exceeding the fecal coliform criterion (Table 6.1). 

6.2 Load Allocation 

Based on a percent reduction approach, the LA for percent reduction in fecal coliform from 

nonpoint sources for each WBID is presented in Table 6.1. It should be noted that the LA 

includes loading from stormwater discharges regulated by the Department and the water 

management districts that are not part of the NPDES Stormwater Program (see Appendix A). 
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

129

Table 6.1. TMDL Components for Fecal Coliform in WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 

3276, 3276A, 3277A, 3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281

This is an eight-column table. Column 1 lists the WBID number, Column 2 lists the waterbody name, Column 3 lists

the parameter, Column 4 lists the TMDL (counts/100mL), Column 5 lists the WLA for wastewater (counts/100mL), 

Column 6 lists the WLA for NPDES stormwater (percent reduction), Column 7 lists the LA (percent reduction), and 

Column 8 lists the MOS.

1 N/A = WLA for wastewater is not applicable as permitted facilities discharge outside WBID boundaries 2 N/A = Not applicable

WBID

Waterbody 

Name Parameter

TMDL 

(counts/

100mL)

WLA for 

Wastewater 

(counts/100mL)

WLA for 

NPDES 

Stormwater 

(% reduction)

LA

(% 

reduction) MOS

3270 C-14 (Cypress 

Creek) Canal

Fecal 

coliform 400 N/A1 22% 22% Implicit

3273

C-13 West 

(Middle River) 

Canal

Fecal 

coliform 400 N/A2 22% 22% Implicit

3274

C-13 East 

(Middle River) 

Canal

Fecal 

coliform 400 N/A2 67% 67% Implicit

3276 C-12 Canal Fecal 

coliform 400 N/A2 52% 52% Implicit

3276A New River 

(North Fork)

Fecal 

coliform 400 N/A2 94% 94% Implicit

3277A New River Canal 

(South)

Fecal 

coliform 400 N/A2 69% 69% Implicit

3277C North New River Fecal 

coliform 400 N/A2 31% 31% Implicit

3277E Dania Cut-off 

Canal

Fecal 

coliform 400 NA2 78% 78% Implicit

3279 C-11 (South New 

River) Canal

Fecal 

coliform 400 N/A2 31% 31% Implicit

3281 C-11 (East) 

Canal

Fecal 

coliform 400 N/A1 93% 93% Implicit

6.3 Wasteload Allocation 

6.3.1 NPDES Wastewater Discharges

Several NPDES-permitted wastewater facilities were identified within the WBID boundaries (see 

Table 4.1a). Two of these are domestic wastewater facilities: the Broward County North 

Regional WWTP and the Town of Davie WWTP (Permit Numbers FL0031771 and FL0040541, 

respectively). However, treated wastewater from both facilities is transported to the Atlantic 

Ocean via ocean outfalls, and therefore does not contribute to the observed levels of fecal 

coliform bacteria within the WBID where they are located. 

It should be noted that the state requires all NPDES-permitted wastewater point source 

dischargers to meet bacteria criteria at the end of the pipe. It is the Department’s current 

practice not to allow mixing zones for bacteria. Any future point sources that may discharge in 

the WBID in the future will also be required to meet end-of-pipe standards for coliform bacteria. 
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

130

6.3.2 NPDES Stormwater Discharges

Table 6.1 presents the percent reduction for stormwater discharges with an MS4 permit in 

current fecal coliform loading for each WBID. 

It should be noted that any MS4 permittee is only responsible for reducing the anthropogenic 

loads associated with stormwater outfalls that it owns or otherwise has responsible control over, 

and it is not responsible for reducing other nonpoint source loads in its jurisdiction.

6.4 Margin of Safety

Consistent with the recommendations of the Allocation Technical Advisory Committee 

(Department 2001), an implicit MOS was used in the development of this TMDL by not 

subtracting contributions from natural sources and sediments when the percent reduction was 

calculated. This makes the estimation of human contribution more stringent and therefore adds 

to the MOS. 
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

131

Chapter 7: TMDL IMPLEMENTATION

7.1 Basin Management Action Plan 

Following the adoption of these TMDLs by rule, the Department will determine the best course 

of action regarding their implementation. Depending on the pollutant(s) causing the waterbody 

impairment and the significance of the waterbody, the Department will select the best course of 

action leading to the development of a plan to restore the waterbody. Often this will be 

accomplished cooperatively with stakeholders by creating a Basin Management Action Plan, 

referred to as the BMAP. BMAPs are the primary mechanism through which TMDLs are 

implemented in Florida (see Subsection 403.067[7], F.S.). A single BMAP may provide the 

conceptual plan for the restoration of one or many impaired waterbodies. 

If the Department determines that a BMAP is needed to support the implementation of these

TMDLs, a BMAP will be developed through a transparent, stakeholder-driven process intended 

to result in a plan that is cost-effective, technically feasible, and meets the restoration needs of 

the applicable waterbodies. Once adopted by order of the Department Secretary, BMAPs are 

enforceable through wastewater and municipal stormwater permits for point sources and 

through BMP implementation for nonpoint sources. Among other components, BMAPs typically 

include the following: 

• Water quality goals (based directly on the TMDL);

• Refined source identification;

• Load reduction requirements for stakeholders (quantitative detailed allocations, if 

technically feasible);

• A description of the load reduction activities to be undertaken, including 

structural projects, nonstructural BMPs, and public education and outreach;

• A description of further research, data collection, or source identification needed 

in order to achieve the TMDL;

• Timetables for implementation;

• Implementation funding mechanisms;

• An evaluation of future increases in pollutant loading due to population growth;

• Implementation milestones, project tracking, water quality monitoring, and 

adaptive management procedures; and

• Stakeholder statements of commitment (typically a local government resolution).

BMAPs are updated through annual meetings and may be officially revised every five years. 

Completed BMAPs in the state have improved communication and cooperation among local 

stakeholders and state agencies; improved internal communication within local governments; 

applied high-quality science and local information in managing water resources; clarified the 

obligations of wastewater point source, MS4, and non-MS4 stakeholders in TMDL 

implementation; enhanced transparency in the Department’s decision making; and built strong 

relationships between the Department and local stakeholders that have benefited other program 

areas. 
FINAL TMDL Report: Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins; WBIDs 3270, 3273, 3274, 3276, 3276A, 3277A, 

3277C, 3277E, 3279, and 3281; Fecal Coliform; April 4, 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

132

7.2 Other TMDL Implementation Tools 

However, in some basins, and for some parameters, particularly those with fecal coliform 

impairments, the development of a BMAP using the process described above will not be the 

most efficient way to restore a waterbody, such that it meets its designated uses. This is 

because fecal coliform impairments result from the cumulative effects of a multitude of potential 

sources, both natural and anthropogenic. Addressing these problems requires good oldfashioned detective work that is best done by those in the area. 

Many assessment tools are available to assist local governments and interested stakeholders in 

this detective work. The tools range from the simple (such as Walk the WBIDs and GIS 

mapping) to the complex (such as bacteria source tracking). Department staff will provide 

technical assistance, guidance, and oversight of local efforts to identify and minimize fecal 

coliform sources of pollution. Based on work in the Lower St Johns River Tributaries and 

Hillsborough Basins, the Department and local stakeholders have developed a logical process 

and tools to serve as a foundation for this detective work. 

In the near future, the Department will be releasing these tools to assist local stakeholders with 

the development of local implementation plans to address fecal coliform impairments. In such 

cases, the Department will rely on these local initiatives as a more cost-effective and simplified 

approach to identify the actions needed to put in place a road map for restoration activities, 

while still meeting the requirements of Subsection 403.067(7), F.S.